Skip Navigation

Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005 29(1):73-98; doi:10.1093/cje/bei004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boianovsky, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B20 - General
Right arrow B22 - Macroeconomics
Right arrow B30 - General
Right arrow B31 - Individuals
Right arrow E12 - Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian
Right arrow E24 - Employment; Unemployment; Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution
Right arrow E30 - General
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 29, No. 1, © Cambridge Political Economy Society 2005; all rights reserved

Some Cambridge reactions to The General Theory: David Champernowne and Joan Robinson on full employment

Mauro Boianovsky

Universidade de Brasilia

Address for correspondence: Department of Economics, Universidade de Brasilia, CP4302, Brasilia, D.F. 70190, Brazil; email: boianovs{at}unb.br

This essay analyses early reactions put forward by Cambridge economists David Champernowne and Joan Robinson to J. M. Keynes's treatment of the labour market in The General Theory. Champernowne's and Robinson's critical reactions represented attempts to fill the gap of the determinants of changes in money-wages, which they both identified as a weak spot in the argument of the book. They rejected, albeit for different reasons, Keynes's notion of the point of full employment as an upper limit defined by the equality between the real wage rate and the marginal disutility of employment. Instead of Keynes's taxonomy of types of unemployment, Champernowne and Robinson introduced, respectively, the concepts of ‘monetary employment’ and ‘monetary unemployment’, and of ‘critical levels’ of employment.

Key Words: David Champernowne • Joan Robinson • Inflation acceleration • Money-wages • Full employment

JEL classifications: B2, B3, E3

Manuscript received December 10, 2001; final version received March 12, 2003.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
M. Boianovsky and H.-M. Trautwein
Price expectations, capital accumulation and employment: Lindahl's macroeconomics from the 1920s to the 1950s
Camb. J. Econ., November 1, 2006; 30(6): 881 - 900.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
M. G. Hayes
Comment: Lucas on involuntary unemployment
Camb. J. Econ., May 1, 2006; 30(3): 473 - 477.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.